|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ShadySue
14626
« on: December 08, 2010, 11:17 »
Just the fact that istock has to give this RC boost during the Vetta sale seems to suggest that even fewer people are on pace to reach their RC goals than they previously expected. They need to get a bunch more people over the hump and they're going to try and do it with the sale. So come January they have more people at goal levels and they can sell the rest of us on the new rates and RC targets as being "sustainable."
They don't need to do that. All they need to do is look at their bell chart and revise the targets downwards if necessary. Besides, RogerMexico said, "No, that isn't what the sale is about. If more people than we anticipate are going to miss the targets... then we'll adjust the targets. These bonus RCs aren't connected to that." which must, obviously, be true. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=279912&page=9 (very bottom of that page)
14627
« on: December 08, 2010, 10:58 »
14628
« on: December 08, 2010, 10:48 »
my only point is that the new system fits contributors according to their rate of production, rather than a blanket level that doesn't differentiate between a contributor that uploads 1200/yr & one who uploads just 100 files per year. the levels are what they are and hopefully they are adjusted to be fair.
Nope, it has nothing to do with contributer's rate of production, but their rate of sales, which isn't necessarilty the same thing.
The figures aren't going to be adjusted to be 'fair', they're going to be adjusted to fit a bell chart which meets their desired profitability rate.
If they can make us all work like drones while our profitability goes down, they're laughing all the way to the bank.
14629
« on: December 08, 2010, 09:23 »
I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...
I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.
I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.
It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.
The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.
We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.
The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.
So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.
As usual, +1 on jsnover's comments.
I don't appreciate the comment about "being serious about your business" either. Just because a person isn't an uploading factory doesn't mean they aren't serious about their business. The statement and the whole situation reminds me of that of a wife-abuser. He beats the crap out of her then tells her it's her fault because she shouldn't have said or done something. Getty/IS takes away our commissions, changes the goalposts, "borrows" EL money, breaks the search engine, breaks the reporting of sales, and then some people have the gall to say it's our fault because we didn't work hard enough or we're not good businesspeople.
+1 on both JoAnn and Cathy
14630
« on: December 08, 2010, 09:22 »
Over here in the US, we're tired of Fraiser re-runs, but we watch Top Gear re-runs endlessly 
Seinfeld here.  [/quote] Ooooh, I loved Seinfeld, but in the UK they changed its place in the scheduling constantly, and as I don't watch Channel 4 as a rule, I only saw a very few episodes.
14631
« on: December 08, 2010, 08:12 »
Brilliant  Thanks Sue, I'll have a look at those.
Bottled water - yes, I remember thinking the same thing!
Ads - agree there too - I mostly use the Beeb, but I can't stop myself from recording re-runs of Frasier on Channel 4. I've a soft spot for it 
Oh, I love Frasier - didn't know they were rerunning it.
14632
« on: December 08, 2010, 07:37 »
I'm curious to know what programme this was? Sounds interesting... I may try to catch it online.
I record what few programmes I want to watch... so I always whizz through the ads. I only stop to watch one if there's something fleetingly interesting regarding an idea for an image...
The Food that made Billions, "Series which tells the story of how big business feeds us by transforming simple commodities into everyday necessities and highly profitable brands" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wdf5t. Three programmes, bottled water, breakfast cereals and yogurt. Ha! I still remember when our French teacher told us that French people bought water in bottles and we didn't believe her! And I remember years later going to France, finding it was true, and thinking it was insane! It's easy to avoid ads if you always watch the Beeb!
14633
« on: December 08, 2010, 05:58 »
Bit OT but there was a programme on TV the other night about the food production industry, it mentioned that one of the biggest growth products within that industry reached a profit margin of 17% which apparently is astronomically high within the industry, on average food producers aim to reach a 15% profit.
Yes, that series has been very interesting, and while I've been watching this, I've been thinking about the iStock shenanigans. The bit I found most interesting is all the lies they told about 'scientifically proven benefits', and when that was investigated and found to be untrue, and they had to take it off their advertising, it didn't matter, as it had burned into the public subconscious anyway. I'm glad I seldom see adverts!
14634
« on: December 08, 2010, 05:41 »
And it's also pretty demotivational when an image is at best match position 83 less than 24 hours after being accepted into the collection. Even though best match changes FTTT, that file is effectively DOA.
On the other scale, when Vetta was introduced, there was a rule that files had to have under 100 sales to qualify. I had one particular file which had gone to about 109 (can't remember exactly), so I didn't submit it for consideration. That file is now buried in best match below many other Vetta files uploaded since then, many of which I don't see as being 'better' than mine.
14635
« on: December 08, 2010, 05:25 »
I don't think the RC system is perfect or even great by any means...but I think it is slightly more fair in theory than canister levels. maybe not in terms of the levels they've set...and I'm hoping those will be modified if contributors aren't making their targets.
Which can only be in terms of the 'bell curve' they have set for each cannister level. I wish someone would explain i n very simple terms, for one mathematically challenged, why 'profitablity' is better than 'profit'. I've seen it explained here, but I'm afraid it didn't make sense, probably because I worked all my life in the public sector. Here's my problem, which shows how challenged I am. If I were looking at two companies, One has a profit margin of 20% and has a profit of 100,000 per annum The other has a profit margin of 50% and has a profit of 80,000 per annum. Why isn't the first company the better off?
14636
« on: December 08, 2010, 05:18 »
that does not speak to quality of your work, which we all agree is great I'm sure. nor does it speak to your knowledge, which I'm the first to say you have a great deal of and which you share very generously. but if I forget it is you in the example...there are many higher canister levels who reached diamond--the second to highest canister level--simply by whittling away at it for a few years. that's okay, but why should they get the same income as a contributor producing hundreds of files per month, and therefore generating income with more downloads (assuming the quality is there).
They wouldn't have the same income. If someone has a tiny number of super selling files (I've seen at least one diamond with fewer than 50 files) they're hardly 'working their butt off', but they are garnering loads of money for iStock. If someone isn't producing the quality/quantity ratio, they're already getting less money because they have fewer sales. Someone with a higher quantity/quality ratio earns more because they have more sales. This artificial 'bell curve' whereby only a certain number of people can reach each percentage point is totally demotivational. If it's 'motivating' it's only making people produce more and more, which benefits the site at a lower percentage, but only a set percentage of people can get the higher percentages. The bell curve is such an outdated model (we learned it in teacher training college in the 70s; I never heard about it since). Nowadays it's all about co-operation, at least within a business. Bear in mind, that once a file has been inspected and is added to the collection, its overhead is tiny. This isn't like a traditional business. A few years ago (before they banned chocolate in schools) I ran a fair trade snack stall at interval in school. The profit was essentially a flat 10%. I mentioned that to a class, and one of the pupils came back a few days later and said her father wanted to know how on earth I could get as much profit as that, as he was running a (small, independent) shop on a lower profit margin. (my stall was raising money for school children in Malawi and had no overheads apart from buying the stock.) Watch my lips: lower than 10%. Of course, the family wasn't living in a luxury Manhattan apartment, but the three children were well dressed and well cared for. On less than 10%.
14637
« on: December 07, 2010, 18:07 »
Lobo on Sunday, while locking the 'Contributers underpaid twice' thread:
"How about we get another thread going early next week on ETAs regarding the things talked about in this thread. "
Lobo today while locking a thread asking for an update:
"We will start a thread this week, like I said."
Whoops, what happened to 'early'?
Time is a long-term (whatever that means) moving goalpost in iStockland.
14638
« on: December 07, 2010, 18:02 »
Lisa - in reply to your other question...adjusting the RC targets downward is good...isn't it? Andrew's just said they won't be adjusted up. meaning, if anything, if people aren't reaching targets en masse, they'll adjust the targets to be more reasonable.
translation, they want to see contributors producing. that's my take anyways.
I don't think they will raise targets for this year, unless they're trying to get rid of loads of contributers; and if they wanted to do that, they'd just do it. What they do in the future, who can tell. As Susan says, we can't take their 'word' at face value. Even if they genuinely mean it at the time, tomorrow, next week, next month, who knows? The RC targets are very demotivational. I've no chance of reaching the 35% target, and my uploads of the past 18 months aren't selling, so it doesn't seem worth the effort, so if they want to see the humble minions producing, they've gone a funny way about it.
14639
« on: December 07, 2010, 14:24 »
I see that RM has posted, "If more people than we anticipate are going to miss the targets... then we'll adjust the targets. These bonus RCs aren't connected to that."
So ~ What on Earth is the point of the bonus RCs, then?
14640
« on: December 07, 2010, 12:37 »
@ Stacey:
on the iStock forum, on which I can't reply, you posted:
"does this pave the way that all sales will result in lowered royalties garnered by contributors? I hate to use the publishing industry as a positive example, because for the most part it isn't a fun industry, but at least when an author gets royalties....their royalties aren't reduced if a book is sold at a discount."
We have always had lowered royalties from all iStock sales and discounts. At least, always since I've been a member there (four years).
14641
« on: December 07, 2010, 11:53 »
I've always meant to say to you... I love that Leonard Cohen quote at the bottom of your posts. One of my favourite all-time quotes - and one I need to keep in mind often
And 'there wiz me' thinking no-one had noticed! 
14642
« on: December 07, 2010, 10:26 »
okay. so let me see if I understand this... can someone help me out here?
1) have they fixed the 10% thing and made back payments yet? (I am not affected by this, but just wondering)
2) This "sale" results in small savings for buyers which means reduced commission to the contributors. But hopefully offset by more sales.
3) double RC is only on the Vetta images, yes? and, they don't show up right away, they'll add them later.
"I'll gladly you pay you tomorrow for a cheeseburger today"
1. No; 2 Yes and in theory, yes; 3. Yes and yes.
14643
« on: December 07, 2010, 06:32 »
@Rubyroo Keywording at Alamy is a total nightmare for me. iStock: easypeasy, Alamy: what? Here is the Alamy page with the info you need: http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/captions-keywords-descriptions.asp(be aware that some of the info isn't fully accurate) If you're used to using a controlled vocabulary, be very aware that Alamy doesn't have one. Also, they don't have 'keyword phrases' as such. So I've had search anomalies such as: A search on someone called "Elizabeth House" threw up one of my photos of a house. My pseudonym has my Sunday Name, Elizabeth as well as my surname, so as I had the essential keyword 'house', my photo showed up on a search for "Elizabeth House". If your pseudonym is your real name, and your surname happens to be something like Glasgow or London, maybe it would be good to change your pseudo. I had 11 hits last week on a search for 'the band great end' - I guess there's a band called 'Great End' - my photos were of different bands (essential keywords) playing at the West End festival in Great Britain (recommended as an addition to UK, as without a CV, there's no way of guessing which a buyer will search on). Without a CV, my photos of the little place called Otter Ferry (essential keywords) often shows up in searches for Otter. Last week one search was "otter NOT oriental NOT SEA NOT seaotter NOT eurasian NOT american NOT european [RM] [Land] [FS]" There's a current forum discussion about the 'keyword phrase' issue: http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=9446Good luck!
14644
« on: December 07, 2010, 05:34 »
Funny and ironic.
Mr Thompson complaining about Microsoft bugs on twitter.
Why #Microsoft will never get it: http://yfrog.com/5rsjf0p The no anti-aliasing for text under 8 pt still isn't fixed in Mac Office 2011
Please, please tell me that that's not him, or someone has hacked into this account or something. I just can't believe that he would have the brass neck to post that. If it really was him, I'm very, very afraid.   
14645
« on: December 06, 2010, 18:34 »
Wouldn't you hate to be a spin doctor at iStock. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=279912&page=1#post5318352Basically, iStock is offering a sale of Vetta files until the end of December, but 'sweetening the blow' by doubling RCs on Vetta sales during the Sale. So I guess that's Good News for the Buyers, and for those Exclusives who are near to their next RC target and who have a lot of good-selling Vettas. No news for non-exclusives and exclusives with no Vettas, or none which sell within that time. Bad news for exclusives who sell Vettas during the Sale, but aren't near their next target, as they're getting less $$$ and the extra RCs won't make a scrap of difference. As I'm nowhere near the Gold Target (but over 9,500 dls), I'm definitely a Boo-hoo not a woo-way on this one. Added: they can work out the code for this, but not to pay us our missing 10%, for several weeks. Ha!
14646
« on: December 06, 2010, 08:21 »
You made me look a bit harder Sue... as far as I can see, only the caption field is asterisked as 'mandatory'.
I've never completed the location fields, and everything is either 'on sale' or 'ready'. I'm using the 'old version' of the manage images feature.
Oh, that's interesting, I thought that caption, essential keywords and location were all mandatory. I've just looked and see that you're right. Don't know where I got that idea from. Thanks!
14647
« on: December 06, 2010, 07:34 »
Thanks Sue, that's helpful to know. The location issue - yes you're right. If other studio shooters are completing that field it might well be throwing a spanner in the works...
I think something has to be entered into that field for the file to be 'ready', then 'on sale': even if just Scotland or USA, or, I guess, 'studio'.
14648
« on: December 06, 2010, 07:16 »
I only fill in fields (other than the required ones) if I feel I have information that needs to go into them. For example, I fill in the description field if I have more information than will go into the caption.
I do find it odd that the require location on every shot, as it's very easy to think of studio setups where the location is totally irrelevant, again contaminating a search. (If someone keys in New York or Edinburgh or Delhi, they don't want a studio shot of a still life that happened to be shot there.)
14649
« on: December 06, 2010, 05:54 »
I suspect the inspectors have some sort of auto-program which throws up a warning if the pic is bigger than the stated dimensions of the camera. Or they all have a chart they automatically look at with each new images as part of the process.
Yes, you should say in the file description - but inspectors don't always read file descriptions. You could Scout your rejection, which could be a few days or a few weeks depending on how busy they are at the moment. You could post on the Critique forum and hope that some kind admin will see your post and pop your image back in the queue. Or you could resubmit with a big NOTE TO INSPECTOR at the top of your description and hope they see it.
14650
« on: December 05, 2010, 19:00 »
From a contributer's point of view, they're not a good thing, as if an image was found in a context which would have needed an extended licence, but none was purchased, you wouldn't be able to have them chased up so easily.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
